Unless Indiana's wording is different from the 1993 Federal law and that of 18(?) other States then

Indiana = "Hands Up Don't Shoot"

If the wording is different show it.

Bob in Texas
at March 31, 2015 5:40 AM

Oh, poor Indiana. Their law is just not a jot different from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. After all, the two laws have the exact same name, so of course, they're identical in every way. (Insert eyeroll here.) This article in The Atlantic explains the differences not only between Indiana's law and the federal law, but also among those states that have enacted similar laws.

So, if you've been claiming that the Indiana statute is no different or not significantly different from the Federal, pants on fire.

...the Indiana statute has two features the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs—do not. First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to “the free exercise of religion.” The federal RFRA doesn’t contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs except South Carolina’s; in fact, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

The new Indiana statute also contains this odd language: “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” (My italics.) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by the Post, says anything like this; only the Texas RFRA, passed in 1999, contains similar language.

What these words mean is, first, that the Indiana statute explicitly recognizes that a for-profit corporation has “free exercise” rights matching those of individuals or churches. A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage.

Second, the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s “free exercise” right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government. Why does this matter? Well, there’s a lot of evidence that the new wave of “religious freedom” legislation was impelled, at least in part, by a panic over a New Mexico state-court decision, Elane Photography v. Willock. In that case, a same-sex couple sued a professional photography studio that refused to photograph the couple’s wedding. New Mexico law bars discrimination in “public accommodations” on the basis of sexual orientation. The studio said that New Mexico’s RFRA nonetheless barred the suit; but the state’s Supreme Court held that the RFRA did not apply “because the government is not a party.”

Remarkably enough, soon after, language found its way into the Indiana statute to make sure that no Indiana court could ever make a similar decision. Democrats also offered the Republican legislative majority a chance to amend the new act to say that it did not permit businesses to discriminate; they voted that amendment down.

Patrick
at March 31, 2015 1:12 PM

Being required to serve those we dislike is a painful price to pay for the privilege of running a business....

That one sentence from Patrick's linked article ought to give everyone pause.

"...the privilege of running a business...."

Let us say a prayer to our benevolent provider:

Thank you, Oh Mighty Government, for letting me gamble my life savings and sweat on starting a business. Thank you for the long hours, stress, and uncertainty. Thank you for letting me face the high possibility of failure (and resulting loss of savings and income). Thank you for laying upon me the extra paperwork, taxes, insurance, and regulations. Thank you mostly for the Social Justice Warriors who remind me daily that I did not build this and to check my privilege.

Of course SJWs think it's a privilege to run a business. After all, they can only see the world as bosses (privileged) and workers (oppressed). In their mind, bosses really didn't build that.

And they assume that those who run a business must be old, male, white, straight, and homophobic; and that all regulations that benefit a business must by default oppress les autres. After all, no gay person or person of color has ever tried to start a business of their own.

Au contraire, mes amis.

The privilege, dear liberals, is not in running a business, but in having the freedom to try, the freedom to build that. Because, dearie, those who take the risks and put in the hours do indeed build that. Please get out of their way.

Conan the Grammarian
at March 31, 2015 3:05 PM

Thanks Patrick for showing the difference in wording, (wait for it) BUT where's the BEEF!

The Supremes have already let businesses have "rights" so "gasp" (to me) there's updated language in the law (should have just gone w/the 1800's approach), and "gasp" that business "may assert" that right "as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding".

The horrors of actually allowing a business owner from to actually have a "defense".

They should just be tarred and feathered before we all go out to Chikfila's for lunch.

OR we could just go to (name that MidEast country) and gather stones before the night's religious discussion.

Bob in Texas
at March 31, 2015 3:26 PM

It's interesting to see the tangents you go off on, Conan, when you've been proven wrong. Yesterday, you posted an article that suggested that there was no substantial difference between the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the law of the same name passed in Indiana.

Today, you find that isn't the case at all. So, instead of noting the differences and just how it affects businesses in Indiana, you find one sentence in the article I linked, and choose to go off on a self-righteous tirade.

And yes, running a business is a privilege. You build your business on state roads which allow customers to get to your business and you can even place a sign on public streets to mark your business. Get it, "dearie"?

Patrick
at March 31, 2015 3:47 PM

"You build your business on state roads which allow customers to get to your business and you can even place a sign on public streets to mark your business." via Patrick

Damn, I knew that McD's should have given me the Big Mac for free! Why the nerve of them.

Investing their own money (not even taking a government grant of tax payer monies), putting in the long hours, paying minions as little as possible to sweep floors and hand out food/change, and risking their own families' future on their efforts.

Ha! They should be like looking for government handouts, living on the dole, hanging around da' hood, and 'occupying Wall Street'.

Why, I bet they even went to school and everything. Fools.

Bob in Texas
at March 31, 2015 4:31 PM

> running a business is a privilege

I would describe you as a five-dollar whore in a ten-dollar dress, which in a remarkable achievement for fifth-grader! Seriously, how vile can one human being be? How constipated? How bitter? How belligerent?

Honestly, Crid, you get so irritated when you get shown up. Are you sure you're not gay? You've got the bitter queen routine down to a science.

Patrick
at March 31, 2015 4:50 PM

You've given your life to being a flippant and distracted human being... It has nothing to do with anyone else visiting the blog, their lives or their comments. Is there something we can do for you? Some principle you'd want us to consider? No?

Yesterday, you posted an article that suggested that there was no substantial difference between the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the law of the same name passed in Indiana.

Today, you find that isn't the case at all.

~ Posted by: Patrick at March 31, 2015 3:47 PM

I find nothing of the sort.

I posted an opinion piece that involved the collected opinion of several practicing lawyers. You posted an opinion piece written by a law professor. They expressed different opinions.

Mine said this law was not substantively different than 30 other laws on the books.

Yours says the the wording is slightly different - mostly in that it specifically allows private for-profit entities protection under it where others do not.

Mine admitted it was possible someone would use it as a justification for not providing services for a gay wedding (as a baker tried to do in Washington under that state's religious protection law), but holds that success in such an endeavor is not guaranteed, as the law was not written specifically to enable such a defense.

Yours alleges that the law was written almost solely for the purpose of legalizing anti-gay discrimination.

The Indiana Legislature did not indicate in its deliberation accompanying the law that it was meant to be used to justify discrimination of any kind, merely to protect the practice of religion from government infringement.

The fact is, the Indiana law, like the other 29 laws, provides for the state to infringe upon someone's religious beliefs only if it can demonstrate a "compelling interest" in doing so.

Battling discrimination can be such an interest - as it was in Washington when a baker tried to use Washington's law as justification for not baking a cake for a gay wedding.

Since Indiana does not include sexual orientation in its protected classes, the law may not be held by the courts to apply.

However, I believe the federal government does include sexual orientation, so the lack of it in the Indiana statutes may be moot.

==============================

And yes, running a business is a privilege. You build your business on state roads which allow customers to get to your business and you can even place a sign on public streets to mark your business. Get it, "dearie"?

Oh, I got it, Patrick. I saw through your arguments a long time ago.

Yes, one builds one's business on state roads - that one helped to fund with one's tax dollars.

And by forming a successful business, one helps to meet a need in the community, selling goods and/or providing services. One also employs people, more as the business grows. That's called job creation - and it creates wealth in the community by adding value that didn't exist before.

After forming a business, one further funds the government (including those roads you're so proud of) through sales taxes, utility taxes, employment taxes, income taxes, Social Security taxes, workers comp premiums, property taxes, etc.

One's workers then use their paychecks to pay sales taxes, income taxes, property taxes, Social Security taxes, tolls, fuel taxes, etc. purchasing goods and services that cause others to be employed.

And you cannot place a sign on a public street. It obstructs traffic if you do that. Besides, there are laws regulating sign placement. In accordance with those laws, you may place it on your land where it is visible from the street. Your land. Your business.

Running the business indeed is a privilege, but not the government-granted one you and Garrett Epps think it is.

When you've created wealth in the private sector (or worked with those who do), get back to us.

Conan the Grammarian
at March 31, 2015 5:32 PM

Laura thinks you're all cold-hearted bastards, and that should make you ashamed.

Seriously--

Putting your last girlfriend on the cover of your next best-selling record is the move of a masculine champion.

Props to Cross, who I never cared about at the time.

Crid [CridComment at Gmail]
at March 31, 2015 5:41 PM

> When you've created wealth in the
> private sector (or worked with
> those who do), get back to us.

Then, to be blunt, you're stupid. The article I posted shows not only the difference in wording, but as to what likely prompted the differences in wording, or what, exactly, the Indiana legislature is afraid of.

Conan: Running the business indeed is a privilege, but not the government-granted one you and Garrett Epps think it is.

Then, you just contradicted yourself. And while I don't think it's government-granted (or shouldn't be), it is government-assisted

As for your claim that business owners helped fund the roadways that businesses live on, how much roadway do you think a single tax-payer pays for? An inch? Twelve inches? That's like saying that a person who puts his change into a plastic donation jar at the supermarket checkout helped fund MS research.

Conan: When you've created wealth in the private sector (or worked with those who do), get back to us.

Are you sure I haven't?

Patrick
at March 31, 2015 11:01 PM

Then, to be blunt, you're stupid. The article I posted shows not only the difference in wording, but as to what likely prompted the differences in wording, or what, exactly, the Indiana legislature is afraid of. ~ Posted by: Patrick at March 31, 2015 11:01 PM

The article you posted was an opinion piece (as was the article I posted in an earlier thread).

Garrett Epps cannot see into the hearts and minds of Indiana legislators, so his opinion of "what likely prompted the differences in wording, or what, exactly, the Indiana legislature is afraid of" is exactly that, his opinion.

To measure the intent of the Indiana legislature, Epps compared the legislators to a bigoted restauranteur and failed politician from his childhood in South Carolina before the Civil Rights movement.

Even Epps couldn't say for sure that the law was to used to exclude anyone, just that it "hints most strongly that it is there to be used as a means of excluding gays and same-sex couples from accessing employment, housing, and public accommodations on the same terms as other people." Hints.

That's called speculation, not fact.

Epps cited no references to prior or similar case law (as the article I posted did).

Epps might be proven correct in the end, but his opinion expressed in that article does not disprove my earlier assertion.

I've no doubt the Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby cases influenced the Indiana legislature in the debate on this bill. To what degree, I don't know.

Remember that the Sandra Fluke and ObamaCare abortifacient imbroglios also hit the news around that time and scared people who hold with more fundamental religious views that their concerns were being ignored and their rights to live according to their beliefs were being trampled by government fiat.

Those two cases probably influenced the Indiana legislature as much as Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby did, if not more so.

While you and I might not hold with more fundamentalist religious views and might even find them silly, we don't get to force people to violate their religious views just because it's inconvenient for us.

In fact, according to 29 state laws (maybe 30 if the Arkansas law gets signed) and 1 federal law (not to mention the Constitution), a government must have a "compelling reason" to infringe upon someone's free exercise of religion.

And, Patrick, bite me.

=========================

Are you sure I haven't? ~ Posted by: Patrick at March 31, 2015 11:01 PM

Yes.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 1, 2015 8:37 AM

Those two cases probably influenced the Indiana legislature as much as Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby did, if not more so.

Actually, the Hobby Lobby case was the abortifacient case.

The Denver bakery and New Mexico photographer cases were the gay marriage ones.

That's what you get for posting before your first cup of coffee.

Conan the Grammarian
at April 1, 2015 10:14 AM

"As for your claim that business owners helped fund the roadways that businesses live on, how much roadway do you think a single tax-payer pays for?"

Take that, you peon! While the litany of other taxes you pay (and Pat apparently does not) is ignored!

Radwaste
at April 1, 2015 3:01 PM

By the way - if the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" being compared with Indiana's is the one I've seen - Public Law 103-141 - it was struck as being an unfunded mandate. This, after horrified readers found it empowered the Attorney General to determine if a religion was a "cult" and disband it by force if it was a burden on government. Many were asking, "Is YOUR church BATF-approved?" following the Waco raid failure.

Not a good thing to emulate. A classic case of the name not matching the content.

It remains an example of something I find fascinating: we say, "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion". Well, former hippies now in political office and universities had no problem recognizing "establishment" as a NOUN when they had to complain about "the Man". They also had no problem recognizing the proprietor of a pub as running an establishment (again, a noun). Today, it is vitally important to government to perpetuate that word as a verb so that laws can be written about churches and their services; the verb lets it happen so long as the law doesn't AID a religion. That power and money's not out of reach that way.